Vivarium: Philosophy Discussions On Any Subject

Of course you can give consent as a child to sex,  that was one of the jokes to the child ****-pedogogy sex scenes in The Satyricon (notice Fellini excluded that scene from his movie?) 

Basically, the teacher was a male live tutor,  teaching a aristocratic boy,  and started molesting him over time,  the boy saying he would tell his mother,  getting the man in trouble. Over time though,  the boy liked it,  and demanded more sex than the MSN could provide,  so the teacher told him to quit pestering him for more sex,  or he will tell his mother.

That Milo guy from Brietbart,  quit over trying to explain something similar. I have no doubt a child can consent,  Sauwelios on ILP has a thread about how he liked watching pedophilic **** in the Netherlands (legal in that country)  because if a girl consents, it is legal. I lashed out on him like the public did to Milo,  but a few years prior,  mostly on the basis that yes,  while a girl who can menstrate can have adult sex physically,  even look attractive,  that isn't the point- we as a society shouldn't make sex objects out of people incapable of having adult relations, and the consequences, children and families. Young teens still in high school knocked up is generally not good for the mothers education.

Murdering the child isn't a wise choice either,  as it misses the problem,  early sexualitation of portions of the population unable to support the obvious results fooling around brings.

We try to separate sex from social roles and responsibility in our society,  as some legalistic fad philosophy. Why most people can't take granny's responsible is because most reject families (not a universal rule,  but obviously most do,  it's pure selfish hendonism,  no offspring).

Same with beastiality.  Yeah- I think a man can pursuade a horse to let him **** him,  and that horse can certainly become attached to the man. But ummm.... is that horse going to get power of attorney,  inherit property,  visit in hospital when that man grows old?  Yeah,  it can help our in certain social capacities,  plowing a neighbors farm,  pulling a sled or wagon in winter for Christmas or tourist tours,  but nobody can take that horse serious as a fully fledged member of society.  We aren't going to give a horse a jury trial,  much less respect a marriage contract between a man and a horse,  as I'm certain Mr. Ed is incapable of understanding what marriage means. And damn to hell if somehow a little centaur is born! You thought racism was bad now,  wait till centaurs start popping up.

Sex is good and pleasurable,  but it's aim is to make babies and bond people into romantic relations,  family building. A child isn't good for that. I think they can consent fully,  I was fully prepared at age 14 to have sex with Playmate Layla Roberts. I don't think I'm sexually more mature 20 years later than I was then.

It's the acceptability of a society preying on such youths. The transition from virginity to sexual experience is always sloppy,  we don't want brutal ****,  frauds and trickery,  or other abuses like older people preying on that level of inexperience coming into the picture. Some fully sexualized adults have fetishes in these areas,  they can do that. I care not about old sterile people screwing,  just on the very bad effects that the people who should be looking for adult mates preying on the young.

You can't tell me though a 14 year old boy isn't mentally able to consent psychologically to sex with a playmate though. I so was. I couldn't raise a child at that age though. Sex is reproductive activity, even when you do it wrong (gay guys can't make babies together),  society insists on pretending today that it isn't. I don't care if your a stupid man **** holes in beehives,  trying to disprove me point- my point is,  everyone except test tube babies have parents who did the nasty,  birthed through a mother. We all know what father and mother us,  most admit having both growing up is preferred. Ethically,  sex should focus on that model first and for most. 99.999999% of the time,  today and in human history,  childbirth is a good thing,  as that's where society originates. It is a act of our renewal. Taking it seriously,  the methods of making new kids,  is something we should take seriously. We shouldn't live in s society that kills off millions of it's offspring via infanticide because we were unprepared for the obvious results of sexual union. I can't reasonably afford at this moment the results of sexual union,  so I avoid it. I'm no monk,  just realistic. I still lust. I'm working on getting myself into a position. Once I take a girlfriend or wife,  it us because I know I can support it enough to shelter,  feed and cloth the sucker till maturity. Impart basic ideas upon it,  send it out into the world to repeat the process. Year,  having a 14 year old girl like in Yemen for a wife solves make insecurity issues,  but it also results in a mother with a muddle school education unable to work outside of the home,  or educate your children properly past a certain age. It's better once they are older,  have a better sense of self,  awareness of the world,  know what is good and bad in men. Better able to navigate society.

Layla Roberts:


Any teenage boy is capable of concenting fully to sex with her. The problem is the results of that union. Something not grasped in modern anti-ethical arguments of equality and consent,  that results arise from our actions even when we don't intend them. A expert juggler juggling chainsaws dies not expect a accident,  but that's **** happens.  Consent is not the issue,  nor right to work,  but how wise the act it. At some point,  you drawl the line. For sex,  we put it at age 18, save if your married (who the hell need marry a 14 year old girl in this era? It's no longer a agrarian,  have 14 children,  illiterate society anymore,  where everyone died at age 45).

Rather it at 21, banning all sex even between minors before then. Or sex licences,  gotta prove you rent or in a apartment,  have a income before you ****.

I gotta figure out how to consolidate the data into my sine wave organism:



The medical procedure as a whole,  sequences,  representing the logical sequencing of the organism,  and each sine wave representing modes in organelles,  like in the time response in mitosis for each action,  a different sine,  calibrated for that life cycle. You can have dozens of sines running at once.

That would give the medical procedure a topography within abstract space and time that I can apply depositional strategic logic to,  like used in military texts (think Sun Tzu).

I am acting a few doctors if anything like that even exists right now. I don't care to reinvent the wheel,  but if it doesn't,  I gotta provide it. Trump has put more emphasis on fast cures,  but I'm not sure how the medical field views emperical statistics in a similar method. Something must exist,  but don't know what. I'm going to push this method,  cause it's easy to determine chemistry from it,  as well as time. It isn't math heavy,  you just look at sinewaves.

So.... I dunno,  got some thinking to do. It's never guys like me who get the Nobel prizes,  always some damn academic. None the less,  millions die each year from these cancers.  Trump wants a cure oriented medical system,  I'll provide a logical,  mathematical system,  likely to be adopted by no one- but I will try none the less. Maybe I'll succeed concept wise,  and a few will expand on my method,  who knows. Be nice if I know I saved lives in the end.

Sextus Empericus then. I'm working on a new class of medical mathematics inspired by him,  posted a aspect if my Sine Wave creature on thus forum in response to Satyr somewhere recently,  here it is:



Of course,  I'm not restricting myself to him. Pyrrhonists were not theists or atheistic,  not able to assert a solid judgment either way. I'm not a big fan on how that line of thinking leads to Advaitian arguments on Non-Duality (in text area, see Astravakra Gita for a example), but are generally excellent in casting doubt on knowledge,  while remaining scientifically minded. They come damn close to bring Buddhist,  good arguments have been presented that they actually are a westernized fringe philosophy of Buddhism,  without any meditation,  gods,  or likewise trappings,  just the bare psychological arguments.

But we've also had a few thousand years of disputing that school too,  so I wouldn't recommend jumping onto the skeptic bandwagon in full faith (he he he)  just yet. I think you'll get alot out of Sextus Empericus though. Satyr can miscorrect all your correctly spelled terminology when you speak of them. I'll see if any of his works are public domain and online to add to the library here soon,  but I know Loeb Classical Library has excellent translations out,  given you collect books and magazines,  if you want it in actual print.

If theres no time or space beyond human perception then what was the universe doing for over thirteen billion years
before we evolved?

The same thing it is still doing, and will continue to do after man is long gone.
Measuring, perceiving, a phenomenon is not necessary for it to exist.

Will time stand still and space cease to expand after we become extinct?

That state describes non-existence.

Now if a tree falls in the
forest but there is no one there to actually hear it will it still make a sound? Yes it will. Because of the vibration of air
particles. Physical phenomena do not need witnesses to function. Whenever I fall asleep the world does not disappear 

Vibrations in the atmosphere are produced.
With no organism with sense organs, there is no sound, as there is no sight, without eyes to see....even if there is still patterns interacting.
Sound refers to how an organism, with a particulate nervous system and sense organ interprets these vibratos produced by a tree falling.

If the question is, "is there a phenomenon that can be heard?" the answer is yes.
Is it heard, with no sense organ to interpret it into what we call 'sound'? No.
The vibrations caused by the tree interaction with air and ground are still there.